Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Tonight

Flooding In Mar-a-Lago, Suspicious, Says Prosecution, On The Case Of Trump's Handling Of Classified Documents; Trump Lawyers Meet With Special Counsel Jack Smith; Unlikely Presidential Candidate For The Democrats Promoted By Elon Musk; California Officials Investigates Two Chartered Planes Full Of Migrants; Artificial Intelligence And The Upcoming Presidential Elections; The Mother Of The Six-Year-Old Who Shot A Teacher To Plead Guilty. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired June 05, 2023 - 23:00   ET




ALISYN CAMEROTA, CNN HOST: Hi everyone. Thanks for tuning into this hour where we bring you tomorrow's news tonight. We have our great lineup of reporters with me tonight, are Harry Enten, Polo Sandoval, John Avlon, and Miguel Marquez. Also, with us with her reporting from D.C., we have Katelyn Polantz.

Okay let's get right to our CNN exclusive. Sources tell CNN that a room at Mar-a-Lago it was flooded in October. That room happened to contain computer servers with surveillance video logs on them. This is raising suspicions among federal prosecutors who are investigating Donald Trump's handling of classified documents. Also, Katelyn, tell us about your reporting and why investigators don't just chalk this up to a pool plumbing problem?

KATELYN POLANTZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Alisyn, they very well could. It could be a pool plumbing problem. We don't have any reporting that says that they got to the bottom of why the pool draining led to the flooding of the very room where I.T. equipment and surveillance videos being kept around a time when the Justice Department also wanted access to surveillance video.

But, you know, this is one of the things that just fits into a series of events where we know they have been asking questions about that very surveillance footage. And whether anybody wanted to possibly tamper with it, whether there was the possibility that there could be gaps in it. We know that they've also been asking questions of witnesses about conversations people had related to this surveillance footage, and the keeping of the surveillance footage.

So, we're just going to have to wait and see if it works to become part of something, but it is something that is a piece of this obstruction investigation we are picking up on.

CAMEROTA: Katelyn, I know that my panelists have many questions for you. John, this seems like an awfully complicated sabotage plan. Doesn't it? JOHN AVLON, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: It does. It's a bank shot.

MIGUEL MARQUEZ, SENIOR NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: But they haven't even -- the material itself wasn't damaged. It doesn't sound like it was damaged.

AVLON: Well, that's what I want a clarification from Katelyn. One, is this like a water-logged Rosemary Woods situation where we lost critical tape? And second of all, normally when people have I.T. equipment, they don't put it in a place that floods easily. So where did that screw up begin?

POLANTZ: Yeah. I've tried to get to the bottom of exactly how a flood happened in this particular room and how the pool draining -- how that water would end up inside a room rather than down a drain or, you know, going out to the ocean since Mar-a-Lago is right there.

But, you know, it is one of the things that we know the prosecutors are asking about because there has been a history of mistrust between the Justice Department and the Trump team. And of course, in American history there has been many, many cases where prosecutors do ask questions about things like this. Whether pieces it together, that's another thing.

But you know, there is an issue here where there is a question of what people intended to do, and that sometimes is just as important as what actually happened. We know that there is testimony right now that the video surveillance footage, it was not damaged. But that might not actually be that material to what the prosecutors are trying to figure out here.

CAMEROTA: Yes, because, and that was Miguel's question. So, Miguel, basically they don't know if they have all of these surveillance tapes.

MARQUEZ: They do not know that, from what I'm understanding. And on the spectrum of things that are odd about things in Donald Trump's world, this seems to be on the low end of the pool id I -- thank you very much. Thank you.

CAMEROTA: (Inaudible) of them. I mean, we -- just prepare yourself, everyone watching.

MARQUEZ: The 11:00 show.

CAMEROTA: But Katelyn, am I right about that? They do have some surveillance tapes, the prosecutors, but they don't know if they have all of them?

POLANTZ: That's right. Well, no actually. I think that they do believe that they have received the surveillance tapes back. And every time we've heard from anyone who was on the Trump legal team -- Tim Parlatore, a former attorney for Donald Trump was just on CNN a couple hours ago saying that whenever there were surveillance video requested, the team was able to turn it over, at least the Trump organization was. [23:05:06]

But throughout this entire time, there were multiple requests for surveillance footage. Essentially every time they were new documents being found at Mar-a-Lago, the Justice Department would come back and seek, or tell the Trump Organization protect that surveillance footage.

And at some point, in time in the fall, one of the men that is being looked at as part of this obstruction investigation, we know that he was being spoken to and questioned by the FBI about the surveillance footage, and what he was captured doing on the surveillance footage, moving boxes with the very other man who we believe is the person that drained the pool.

CAMEROTA: Oh, okay, okay, that's interesting.

POLO SANDOVAL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: What about the owner of the pool?

CAMEROTA: The owner of the pool is Donald Trump.

SANDOIVAL: Exactly. So, he is notorious for taking to Truth Social and quickly downplaying stuff. I wonder, Katelyn, has he at all commented about this?

POLANTZ: I haven't seen that yet; I think that much of the attention from Donald Trump on Truth Social today has been on the Justice Department meeting that his lawyers were able to get today. That they had asked to go to main justice to speak to the attorney general. They didn't exactly get a meeting with Attorney General Merrick Garland, but they did get the special counsel in a room. And so, there has been a reaction from that where Donald Trump is saying essentially publicly that he believes he could be indicted.

CAMEROTA: Okay so let's talk about that. So, that we know that the Trump lawyers, as you say, went and met with Jack Smith. And so, what does that tell us Katelyn?

POLANTZ: I'm not exactly sure what that tells us other than it is indicating to us that the Trump team believes that they are at a pivotal moment in this investigation. We do have a lot of reason to believe that this investigation is nearing its end because of the amount of steps the Justice Department has taken to nail down evidence here.

Getting Donald Trump's defense attorney to turn over his notes and you testified to a grand jury under the crime fraud exception, that's a really big step. But there has also been a scouring of Mar-a-Lago in every way, not just looking at the pool and the server room, but also, talking to from what I'm told, nearly everybody who works there by the FBI and also through grand jury subpoenas.

And so, all of that put together indicates that the investigation may be coming to a close. And this is the sort of step that a defense team might want to take if they believe an investigation is coming and need to close, get an audience with the people in charge and make their case.

CAMEROTA: Harry, do you have a question?

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR DATA REPORTER: Just, I, as a consumer of this she wasn't paying a lot of close attention. So, how many different cases are there right now and where do they all stand?

CAMEROTA: Are you going to make Katelyn do math? You're going to make Katelyn do math right now. Okay? Katelyn, do you know how many open investigations there are?

POLANTZ: Well in the federal system, I mean, in the full federal system I don't know the full amount of open investigations. But the ones that we follow, and the ones about Donald Trump right now, we know that there's a federal investigation being led by special counsel Jack Smith and he is looking at two sides of the coin, which has been publicly stated by the attorney general, that he is looking into the situation with documents at Mar-a-Lago, and handled by Trump potentially after the presidency.

And then also he's looking at January 6th, that is another thing that is clearly under special counsel Jack Smith's purview. If there are spin-off cases, if those cases come to gather or crossover in some way, that remains to be seen. But you know, there was already a new twist today in some of the public reporting in that we have been following, grand jury activity being led by the special counsel in Washington, D.C. for months and months.

It's a secret grand jury but you see witnesses and their lawyers coming in and out of the federal courtroom, courthouse, and now we do know there is a grand jury in Florida that is also going to hear a witness this week related to the documents case out of Mar-a-Lago. So, we're going to make sense of that as much as we can.

But it takes a lot of reporting to try and see. And it might not be something we know exactly how this is going to function as individual cases, or spin-off cases, or maybe no cases in court until there is some sort of finality from the special counsel's office.

CAMEROTA: Well, we always appreciate your reporting. And thank you for always bringing us the latest on your great reporting. And I like that you are going to even take a stab at how many federal cases there were, not even involving (inaudible) to answer Harry's question. That is very ambitious of you. Thank you for even trying. Were you counting up how many you think that there are? Were you --

AVLON: Well, yeah, then you got all the Georgia fake elector's case. Then you've got New York, you've got the hush money case, you've got the (inaudible) case. I mean, I think it's at least five outstanding that we know of.


But again, you know, until that was going forward, those were just open investigations.

CAMEROTA: All right, Harry, I hope that answers your question.

ENTEN: I feel like (inaudible). I got it.

AVLON: Do you feel satisfied?

ENTEN: The numbers have been answered.

CAMEROTA: Yeah. Katelyn, thank you for everything. We really appreciate you.

Okay, coming up, the field is getting crowded. It's not just the Republicans. Harry's going to tell us who is entering the race for president, who is becoming a bigger factor than you might expect.


CAMEROTA: Twitter CEO Elon Musk, hosting a twitter interview with Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. today. During the interview, Kennedy claimed that Democrats had turned into Republicans.


ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If you asked questions about vaccines, you were Trump Republican. And if you had a, just a religious belief in their efficacy and safety that could not be questioned, you were a Democrat.


And so, I watched that, all that play out and watch the Democrats slowly become these pro-corporate, pro-war, pro-censorship Republi -- what had once been Republicans.


CAMEROTA: Well, the latest CNN polling shows that among Democrats and Democratic leaning voters, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. gets 20 percent. Harry Enten has been following the story for us. How many people are surprised on this panel by RFK, Jr. is getting 20 percent right now?

MARQUEZ: Right now?

CAMEROTA: Yeah, right now.

ENTEN: Well, now, I mean, not with the polls that can't.

CAMEROTA: No, no, I mean, its name recognition. Is that what's happening or is it more?

ENTENL: I would argue that it's perhaps a little bit more. Yes, that's part of it, name recognition. The Kennedy brand is so strong within the Democratic Party, but I think it's interesting to figure out who are these Democrat leaning voters that Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is doing well amongst. And it is in fact, independent-leaning Democrats. It's the Democratic leaning part of that equation and it's those that consider themselves either moderate or conservative.

If you look at the numbers, where you look amongst those, look at this, the primary support among moderates or conservative, independents, Joe Biden is up by just six points there. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is getting 35 percent of the vote. So, it's not these liberal Democrats or these progressive Democrats I think RFK, Jr. would call himself.

And in fact, if you look amongst those Democrats who call themselves, quote, unquote, "strong Democrats," right? Where is Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s favorable rating? Look at this. His favorable rating is just 27 percent, his unfavorable rating amongst those, quote, unquote, "strong Democrats" is 50 percent.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s strength is in fact, not within the Democratic base. It's actually amongst those in the middle who could potentially vote in a Democratic primary, which makes sense but I think would be perhaps a little bit surprising given Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s history of sort of seeing himself as a lefty Democrat.

AVLON: Yeah. I'm not buying the categorizations of this because I think it skews beyond moderate independent. I think if you look the underlying appeal of Robert F. Kennedy, I think first of all, it is name I.D. that Kennedy brand. It's a proxy for, is Biden too old? And then it's getting into how much is about actually Bobby Kennedy, Jr.'s actual positions? Is it about, you know, his skepticism about vaccines, which had been an issue on the left that migrated right?

Is it about environmentalism? I'm guessing that's actually probably not the prime driver. And it's probably not about, you know, I'm a culturally conservative Catholic Democrat ala the Kennedy brand and that's why I'm going here. So, I think this is probably isn't about moderates and independents as much as about an avatar for an alternative to Biden and a little bit about the Kennedy brand. And probably a little bit of (inaudible).

ENTEN: So, I actually looked. It turns out there isn't that big of a difference between those who approve of Joe Biden and disapprove of Joe Biden and their support for Kennedy. But I would make the argument that in fact, someone like a Jack Dorsey, who you know, has endorsed the former head of Twitter. Who did he donate to back the 2020 campaign? He donated to Andrew Yang. He was a Tulsi Gabbard type person.

These kinds of crypto people, these people who think, oh, I am smarter than the average individual and I'm going to sort of go away from the Democratic brand. Those types of people are the people that RFK, Jr. is doing well amongst. So, it's not, you know, when we talk about moderate, conservative, independent or Democrats it is not that sort of traditional way.

AVLON: That's exactly what I mean. Is that the labels don't mean a thing. Also, the (inaudible) overlap between policies of Andrew Yang and Tulsi Gabbard, that's just a nonsense conversation. There's nothing -- MARQUEZ: Do these polls matter this far out? I mean, people are sort

of projecting to the future. I cannot see that they'll be voting that way in 18 months.

ENTEN: So, interestingly enough, when you look at the history of primary polling, it is that at this point necessarily predictive. And remember, the primaries don't take place in 18 months. The primaries can take place in sis, seven, eight months depending on the year. But what we know is that those primary polls are broadly something that does tell us something about the future, right?

So, let's, say if you're polling at 35 percent or up, those folks tend to win the nomination more often than not versus if someone let's say is polling at 20 percent or below, those people don't tend to win nomination. So, Joe Biden in that poll, right, polling at about 60 percent. That's a very strong position.

He is very, very likely to win the Democratic position given the polling. But I still think it's an interesting, sort of insight into where the Democratic Party is at this particular point, that someone like Kennedy, can in fact (inaudible) --

CAMEROTA: Okay. Now tell us about the Republican side. Who's getting in this week?

ENTEN: So, listen, everybody's in the pool, you know. We're talking about pulls on the last segment. Let's talk about pulls again. Folks that are getting in this week, a lot of former governors, or current governors, so we got Chris Christie, the former governor of New Jersey who is expected to announce this week. We've got Doug Burgum, who is in fact the governor of North Dakota this particular week.

And, of course, we have former Vice President Mike Pence who, in fact, filed earlier today. And, if we look right now where they are pulling, it's not exactly good.


So, Trump leads the GOP field at 54 percent. You see Mike Pence tied for third place at four percent, 50 points leaders. Christie at 1 percent. Burgum at 1 percent tied for seventh place. But again, there are so many candidates that are jumping in that pool at this point. It's going to be really difficult for any of these little polling candidates to really jump ahead.

One other little nugget I'll note about Chris Christie, you know, he obviously ran in 2016. He was a fan of Donald Trump, no longer. The idea of the Christie candidacy is perhaps to go after Donald Trump. Here is the one thing of why I view that with a little skepticism. And that is if you look at Chris Christie's unfavorable rating at this point among GOP voters, it is, get this, 44 percent which is the second worst ever for a Republican candidate running for the Republican nomination among GOP voters in the June before the primary since 1980. So, Chris Christie, not a very popular guy amongst Republican.

AVLON: Well, this begs the question. Whose first?

ENTEN: Now, this is the fun question.

AVLON: There you go. Come on!

ENTEN: Who do you think is first?

AVLON: I genuinely don't know it is why I'm asking, otherwise, I don't --

ENTEN: The answer is actually Donald Trump.

AVLON: Oh, there you go.

ENTEN: Donald Trump in 2016, before he got in, remember, he launched his candidacy in the middle of June of 2015 -- excuse me -- when he launched his candidacy. Also, he saw a major jump in his favorable ratings. I'd --

AVLON: So, you're saying there's a chance, Harry?

ENTEN: There is a chance, but let's just say I think that people have a far better idea of who Chris Christie is that necessarily knew what Donald Trump would bring to the equation back in 2015.

CAMEROTA: Well, I don't know, Harry. You guys know about this better than I, but I don't like when somebody's not even in the race yet and we help him out.

AVLON: I agree.

CAMEROTA: And so, I mean, yes, I understand he's at 1 percent. I get it. I know the odds are stacked against him, but anything is possible, you know. We still have a year to go.

ENTEN: Yes, we still have seven months to go and if you had asked me a lifetime ago whether I'd be sitting on this panel with these esteemed fellow panelists and (inaudible) and Camerota, I'd say, there'd be no chance. So, miracles do in fact happen.

CAMEROTA: It is your dream.

MARQUEZ: This is a miracle. I agree.

ENTEN: This is a miracle. But here's the thing I would note. Sure, there is time remaining and no, we don't count anybody out, but if you look at history, and when you see someone who's pulling in Donald Trump's position and you see someone's pulling in Chris Christie's position, the chance of Chris Christie becoming the nominee while certainly is not zero is very, very small.

If there is one person who history would suggest has a real shot of winning a nomination, it's not Donald Trump. It's someone like Ron DeSantis who is obviously pulling significantly higher in a low 20s, than someone like a Chris Christie as of this point. CAMEROTA: Got it. Well, as you said, you are personification of the

dreams coming true. So, anything is possible. All right, thank you very much for all of that reporting, Harry. Okay.

Meanwhile, California officials open an investigation into two plane loads of migrants arriving in Sacramento apparently from Texas. But how is Florida involved? Paula has a new reporting, next.



CAMEROTA: A second private plane carrying migrants have landed in Sacramento, California with at least 20 people on board. A plane with 16 migrants arrived in the city on Friday. Both flights, apparently originated in Texas, but the passengers also carried documents indicating they were in Florida at some point. California officials condemned the flight as stunts by politicians from other states. Okay, Polo is covering this for us. So, who sent them there? Who's behind the stunt, if that's what it is?

SANDOVAL: So, Alisyn, it seems like history is repeating itself that's because this is strangely familiar. You know, recall late last year with these flights to Martha's Vineyard. Two migrant's flights the governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, taking credit for that. And, right now, according to the attorney general in the state of California, it seems that that is where the paper trail is leading.

Investigators with the Department of Justice there in the state, as our colleague Isabel Rosales has been reporting all day, that is the working theory right now as they continue to speak to these migrants that were flown from El Paso, eventually ended up at the capital of the state of California, two flights in all.

Now, we know, at this point it is really what the attorney general says that the state of California issuing a statement today, a bunch of it pretty (inaudible) actually. What Bob -- what Rob Bonta is saying, he is saying that he continues to collect evidence, still speaking to, again, these migrants calling this, according to him, state sanctioned kidnapping which is why these investigators are actually looking into this right now, calling this immoral, calling it disgusting as well.

And also, the attorney general saying something interesting here, saying that some of these migrants were basically approached in El Paso and were recruited to take part in these flights, just like what we saw last year. And that they were working under the assumption that they would be providing housing and employment, and various other benefits when they arrived in California which, much of that was not true.

We have reached out to Florida officials for comments, still have not heard back. But look, we also have to remind viewers that there are some recent legislations that Governor DeSantis introduced and passed, which entitles the state to about $12 million in emergency funding for the state's relocation program, which they have tapped into. So, whether they --

CAMEROTA: Doesn't it happen to migrants arriving in your state? What confuses me is if Governor DeSantis taking migrants from Texas and relocating them. How -- is Governor Abbott okay with that? How is that working?

SANDOVAL: So, reminder that this is now presidential candidate Ron DeSantis, and of course, the immigration debate is one that is continuing to wage and it's going to be one of the big hot button issues come election day.


So, this is likely going to be one of the reasons why he's allowed -- he's not really shy about talking about the Martha's Vineyard flight. So, again, we are still waiting to hear back from regarding these particular flights. But in terms of what California officials, they are strongly condemning this.

We also had an opportunity to hear from the lawyers for civil rights group, which is the group in Texas representing some of the asylum seekers that were transported to Martha's Vineyard in a class action lawsuit. They have representatives right now on the ground in Sacramento and they're speaking to these asylum seekers trying to gather the facts and that paperwork that they say originated from Florida to say that they potentially could join this class action lawsuit in addition to the criminal investigation that's ongoing.

ENTEN: I mean, why would Ron DeSantis shy away from this fight, right, fi he's running from the Republican nomination for president which he is, because we think back to 2015, who was the number one issue that Trump ran on back then? It's immigration. Speaking, you know, taking a hard line on immigration and every -- if I recall correctly, in every single one of the exit polls and that voters said immigration was their top issue on the Republican side. Trump won those votes.

CAMEROTA: It's not the fight that confuses me. It's him going to another governor's territory and doing it. He is not really looking in people --

ENTEN: Plus, it's very expensive.

CAMEROTA: -- from Florida.

AVLON: This is what happens -- so you're running from president, all of a sudden you can move people around the country at will.

CAMEROTA: Can you?

AVLON: No, you can't actually, but that's clearly the theory behind the troll, which is all about playing the debates. And also, that legitimately raising awareness about the problem that's been on the border by moving it beyond the border.

CAMEROTA: I agree with you. There has been an upside, I think to this, because then the northern states that don't normally deal with this have had to roll up their sleeves and figure out what to do about --

AVLON: At paid cost.

CAMEROTA: For sure. So, in fact, I'm even reluctant to say stumped because I think that it's on all of our shoulder. So, everybody in the country has to be able to deal with this. But I just don't understand. Is Governor Abbott cool with this?

SANDOVAL: Well, you know, he's also been using emergency funds out of the state of Texas to provide bus transportation to migrants here in New York City, right? This is something that we've seen before, but it's also really important to remember that the asylum seekers have told me time and time again on the border, they don't plan to stay in these border community's long term.

What you hear from these Republican governors in Texas and Florida, is that they want to provide relief to these border communities. But the reality is, these asylum seekers, they're just sort of making their way through these community. Their end goal is, California, Chicago, Washington, D.C. And for nearly 47,000 that are still in the care of New York City, Empire State as well.

So, some might see this as he is giving these asylum seekers a transportation that they normally would have to pay for. Instead, on a private charter flying to California.

MARQUEZ: California officials say that they want to charge somebody criminally with this, but I can't see who would they charge and for what?

CAMEROTA: Who would it be?

SANDOVAL: Now, you do have -- we have heard these versions from these migrants on the ground that they were approached by ring leaders by these individuals that painted a really pretty picture about life in California. So, there might be maybe some leverage there. But we have to see exactly where that investigation leads. So, they're looking into the possibility of pursuing criminal charges and civil action.

ENTEN: One little sort of nugget from the polling that you spoke about earlier hinted at Alisyn was essentially that we all have to share the burden. And maybe now New York is experiencing what some of those border towns have been experiencing for a long time. And we know from the polling is you know, New York City voters say they don't believe that the city can handle these, you know -- all of these migrants.

And more than that, New York City voters are very happy or perfectly fine with sending some of these folks upstate, which has been one of those big issues (inaudible) was it? Was it Orange or Rockland County, I can't recall which.



ENTEN: Both. Where, you know, the county commissioner is up there, like, whoa, wait a second. It's quite a --

CAMEROTA: Yes. People definitely have felt differently once it's in their backyard.

ENTEN: Yeah.

CAMEROTA: Than they had just theoretically talking.

SANDOVAL: But again, the key difference is, many don't want to stay in Texas. They do stay in New York and all these other cities that we mentioned for the duration of their asylum proceedings.

AVLON: And the Biden administration could also alleviate some of the pressure by granting work permits, right?

SANDOVAL: By speeding up the process of obtaining those work authorizations, and that continues to be the heart of this issue, regardless of whether the number of asylum seekers are arriving here in New York, up or down. The reality is, again, they're all over the country but here in New York alone, just 47,000. They are still in the care of New York City.

So, the argument that we continue to keep hearing from city officials is President Biden, please expedite this work authorization so they can get to work and pay their way out of the cities.

AVLON: Correct.

CAMEROTA: Polo, thank you very much for that.

SANDOVAL: It's complicated.

CAMEROTA: All right, artificial intelligence already making an impact on the presidential election. John has a new reporting on what's reality, when we come back.



CAMEROTA: We are in the midst of the A.I. revolution and fake content is now apparently everywhere. So, what does that mean for the 2024 presidential election? John Avlon is reporting on this. So, John, you're already seeing fake, what, campaign ads? What are you seeing?

AVLON: You're all -- look, we've talked for a long time about the danger of disinformation in our politics and misinformation and the rise of A.I. and how it's happening so quickly and so intensely. Now, these two strings are coming together and you're already seeing it make an impact in the upcoming presidential race.

Just recently we saw the RNC to put out and add that it was all basically A.I. generated content showing sort of a dystopian future should Biden be re-elected.

[23:40:04] You know, the streets of San Francisco being shut down and martial law and things like this. This is actually a relatively restrained use of A.I. compared to some of the other blatant disinformation not put out by institutional actors.

The Trump campaign, always leading into sort of a trollish posture to its competitors. They are hosting fake Twitter spaces where DeSantis campaign featuring some low-lives from human history.

CAMEROTA: Hold on, hold on. This is President Trump's campaign that is fake and it's pretending to be a Ron DeSantis this campaign ad?

AVLON: No, a Ron DeSantis Twitter spaces, which is what we're going to have the botched launch --

CAMEROTA: Of course.

AVLON: Yes. So, this is their nightmare version of what a twitter space --

CAMEROTA: How is anybody supposed to be able to tell what's real?

AVLON: Well, this is the larger picture. That obviously is a troll and a fairly transparent one. But you see other things come out like we saw a, you know, fake announcement of an explosion at the Pentagon, or an image of Donald Trump being arrested. These are totally fabricated. Non, you know, institutional actors.

And the danger is that these things go viral. And, of course, that starts -- that just sets off the ripple of disinformation. And I think we need to confront the fact that we are going to be seeing more of this coming up. And people may be susceptible to it. So that raises the question of what kind of regulations can be put in place.

CAMEROTA: And what's the answer?

ENTEIN: Don't look to me because I've figured out what regulations and how we're going to monitor this situation. But I would just say that this fear, you know, that John is, you know, putting out there is a fear that a lot of Americans do have about A.I.

CAMEROTA: They should.

ENTEN: They should have it. And you know --

MARQUEZ: I think most people look at stuff online now and think is that -- their first question, is that real?

CAMEROTA: Do you think they're discerning enough?

MARQUEZ: Well, look, people went to the very low end of the internet very quickly after all the talk about will this bring freedom and democracy into everything else. But I think we've been through this for a little while now and I would hope, I would think that people are a little more -- AVLON: Interested, and I think there's plenty to suggest that Harry probably has got the data to suggest that people aren't necessarily gravitating towards media (inaudible) courts. And in fact, the E.U. is pushing one solution, which is to actually to make the platform responsible for identifying A.I. generated content as a way of flagging for people on screen, if you. But that's going to have its limits because this is a game of whack-a-mole, which is of course the problem.

CAMEROTA: But does the U.S. have any plan for regulation as we head into these presidential elections?

AVLON: There is a strong concrete plan. Aspirations, goals, but I think it really just goes to show we need to get our act together and fast. The industry is crying out for regulation. Congress, if there are some bills, they're being put forward. But this is all happening so fast and always our laws lag behind tech innovation. But this has critical (inaudible) for democracy. So, let's get off, you know -- they've got to start dealing.

SANDOVAL: Well, it's important to point out also when you were showing that example, I don't know if you saw how the control actually put up a label on the top left. You don't see that a whole lot. Obviously, we're using this to delay these examples. So, I think the wait -- I imagine what will really be on these platforms and on these networks to highlight it.

ENTEN: Yes, I mean, if it ever gets on the networks, right? The people who are going to believe this garbage are people who are online, who think they're smarter than everybody else, they see a tweet, and they want to go with it.

MARQUEZ: But the people are going to believe this garbage. I mean, who want to believe this garbage whether it's good, bad or otherwise. I think most people are a little more discerning.

ENTEN: I would just note, how much vaccine misinformation was there out there. How much misinformation about the 2020 campaign, how many people believe the falsehood that the 2020 election was somehow stolen. So, there is definitely a history, a recent history of people in this country willing to believe things that simply put are untrue. And I would like to think that it's partially on the media though, we can't cover every single base to be able to point it out.

AVLON: And I think that's -- the CNN poll showing over 60 percent of Republicans still think that there was some malefices to the 2020 election, completely baseless. That's a receptivity problem based on confirmation bias and the sort of hot houses of disinformation or people are siloed and not open to confronting facts. That's an even deeper problem.

CAMEROTA: Yes, but I mean, we haven't solved any of that as we approach as A.I., you know, gallops towards us.

AVLON: Got to get ahead.

CAMEROTA: And so, yes, hopefully -- well, I hope everyone watching has critical thinking skills.

In the meantime, up next, an update on the mother of the six-year-old boy who took a gun to school in Virginia and shot his teacher. Miguel is going to fill us in on what's happened to her, next.



CAMEROTA: Well, the mother of the six-year-old boy who brought a gun to school and shot his teacher is expected to plead guilty to federal felony charges this week and Miguel Marquez is following the story for us. So, why federal felony charges?

MARQUEZ: Well, she has been charged both by the feds and at the state level as well. This is Deja Taylor. She is 26-years-old and it does appear she will -- the next few weeks probably plead guilty to two federal charges. The unlawful use of a controlled substance while possessing a firearm, and making a false statement while purchasing a fire arm.

That's because when she went into the gun shop in July of 2022, she was doing the federal background check, it asked the question, are you an unlawful user or addicted to marijuana or antidepressants, stimulant, narcotic drug or any other controlled substance? And she checked no. She was using marijuana at the time. Marijuana is legal in the state of Virginia, is illegal by the Feds. So, she essentially lied on that form.


CAMEROTA: I wonder how they figured out that she was using marijuana at the time?

MARQUEZ: Because she admitted to using marijuana. And then the state's charges that she faces are felony, child neglect, and recklessly leaving a firearm to endanger a child. So, that will come down to the pipe, but right now she is facing federal charges that she will probably would plead guilty to.

CAMEROTA: What I think is most interesting about this case is the same thing I thought was most interesting about the Oxford, Michigan case, which is parents being held responsible. This is (inaudible). I mean, she is just -- the child is six-years-old. So, obviously the parent is responsible and didn't have the gun locked up in a way that they had to.

But the idea that parents need to be more responsible around their minor children, meaning under 18, and guns. This seems -- is this a trend? I mean --

MARQUEZ: Well, sadly, it's more of a trend then we would like to admit, but there are examples of this in more than one state.

CAMEROTA: Of parents being charged? MARQUEZ: Of parents -- of children taking their parent's guns, but

whether or not the parent gets charged is another issue. In this particular case, her lawyer claims that the gun was in the bedroom closet on the top shelf, with a gun lock on it. If you are going to put a gun lock on the gun, then you better make sure the kid cannot get the key.

He took the gun to school, sat there for most of the day. This is also a kid who had a history of violence, even though he is six-years-old, had a disability, there was a lot of background to this. And sat there for most of the day with a gun at 2:00 p.m., pulls it out, his teacher is reading, she puts her hand up, the boy goes through, hits her in the chest, and she survived, in the shoulder. But she is now suing the school district as well because she feels that they did not do enough to help out.

But, yeah, you would like to think that more parents would be held responsible as someone who went through gun training a thousand years ago, that is the one thing that they hit so far that you have to secure the gun. You have to make sure that its --

AVLON: Yeah. Look, it sounds like this mother had a trigger lock, which is a step in that direction. The incoherence of federal and state marijuana laws putting that aside, sets a technicality. The issue is what, it's a six-year-old, right? So, you want to blame somebody. The teacher is blaming the school, people are trying to blame the mother because you can't effectively blame a six-year-old who is the person who pulled the trigger.

And yet, gun manufacturers are liable, are sort of protected from any liability. And so, we're pointing a lot of fingers at different people looking for who to blame, but you know, there is one party that is completely inoculated from that, from the federal law, and that seems to be an incoherence.

CAMEROTA: Yes, absolutely. I mean, where we know this, that gun manufacturers are generally protected. The parents in Newtown were able to find a loophole, but -- sue Remington, but that's very rare.

MARQUEZ: Very rare.

ENTEN: I'm just going to myself, what the heck are we doing? We have children, young children bringing guns to school, being able to get access to and I don't know, you know, again, I'm listening to all of you to understand the case a little bit better, that up on that thing and you had to climb, but was still able to get it. And I just think this just goes back to a larger question of, what are we doing in this country on guns?

And, you know, new hint at -- you said it earlier on, Miguel, which was, you know, we talk about responsible gun ownership. Something here went clearly wrong and this isn't the only example. Something is going wrong in a lot of different places, and it just -- honestly, it's just amazing to me.

MARQUEZ: If you introduce a gun into a household, into a school, the likelihood of it being used goes up exponentially. And there are just so many guns in this country. Whether that trigger lock was properly placed on the gun, whether it was even locked at all, whether the kid had access to the key, all things. Kids are very curious about guns once they see them.

We do fantasize in our films and pop culture and everything else, everything is about guns. And you can understand why a kid might want to see it, play with it, you know, go shoot a gun. I mean, and that's what boys do.

SANDOVAL: I do think it is just the federal government is presumably sending a message by filing a federal charge against the mom for this particular reason. It's something that at least on my coverage of shootings, you don't see very often. As if lying in that ATF form when we go purchase a weapon, and this is something that clearly is (inaudible)--

MARQUEZ: Well, had she checked yes, she would not have been able to buy the gun. So -- and marijuana, despite so many states legalizing it, it is still a controlled substance at the federal level, and it's still on there. And there's even a warning that goes with this, indicating that it may be legal in your state, but it's not legal federally. So, if you check now --

AVLON: That's a whole different (ph) conversation, but it is completely insane that we have the same careers (inaudible).



CAMEROTA: Yes, but I mean, I guess that the larger point is that maybe this will be a deterrent if parents hear about this case and the Michigan case, for the parents to just be much more mindful of where their gun is if it's locked up, where their kids are, do they want to have gun in whatever room is accessible to kids, all that stuff. Hopefully this will send a message.

MARQUEZ: We hope. We live and hope.



CAMEROTA: Gentlemen, thank you very much. Great to have you on here.

AVLON: We survived this, guys.

CAMEROTA: Yes. It was actually really fun, and thanks for all the reporting. All right, tomorrow on "CNN THIS MORNING," a record number of women are in the labor market as you probably know. Well, now experts are debating why. So, tune in for that. Thanks so much for watching us tonight and our coverage continues now.